Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and Victim Race

Many hate crimes are not reported and even fewer hate crimes result in an arrest. This study investigates patterns of victim reporting and arrest for hate crimes in two parts. First, using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, we find that, controlling for offense severity, hate crimes are less likely than non-bias crimes to be reported to the police and that the police are less likely to take further action for hate crimes, compared to non-hate crimes. Second, we use data from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the National Incident-Based Reporting System to compare differences between types of hate crimes in the likelihood of crime clearance. We find that those hate crimes most likely to result in arrest are those that fit the profile of a “stereotypical” hate crime: violent incidents, incidents committed by hate groups, and incidents involving white offenders and black victims.     

Hate groups and hate crime

This paper is the first to investigate the relationship between hate groups and hate crime empirically. We do so using panel data for the U.S. states between 2002 and 2008. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find little evidence that hate groups are associated with hate crime in the United States. We find somewhat stronger evidence that economic hardship may be related to hate crime. However, evidence for the potential importance of economic factors remains weak. Further, we find that demographic variables are not significantly related to hate crime in the United States. Our results leave the question of what factors may drive hate crime in America unresolved. But they cast doubt on the popular perception that hate groups are among them.     

What is hate speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate

The issue of hate speech has received significant attention from legal scholars and philosophers alike. But the vast majority of this attention has been focused on presenting and critically evaluating arguments for and against hate speech bans as opposed to the prior task of conceptually analysing the term ‘hate speech’ itself. This two-part article aims to put right that imbalance. It goes beyond legal texts and judgements and beyond the legal concept hate speech in an attempt to understand the general concept hate speech. And it does so using a range of well-known methods of conceptual analysis that are distinctive of analytic philosophy. One of its main aims is to explode the myth that emotions, feelings, or attitudes of hate or hatred are part of the essential nature of hate speech. It also argues that hate speech is best conceived as a family resemblances concept. One important implication is that when looking at the full range of ways of combating hate speech, including but not limited to the use of criminal law, there is every reason to embrace an understanding of hate speech as a heterogeneous collection of expressive phenomena. Another is that it would be unsound to reject hate speech laws on the premise that they are effectively in the business of criminalising emotions, feelings, or attitudes of hate or hatred.     

What is Hate Speech? Part 2: Family Resemblances

The issue of hate speech has received significant attention from legal scholars and philosophers alike. But the vast majority of this attention has been focused on presenting and critically evaluating arguments for and against hate speech bans as opposed to the prior task of conceptually analysing the term ‘hate speech’ itself. This two-part article aims to put right that imbalance. It goes beyond legal texts and judgements and beyond the legal concept hate speech in an attempt to understand the general concept hate speech. And it does so using a range of well-known methods of conceptual analysis that are distinctive of analytic philosophy. One of its main aims is to explode the myth that emotions, feelings, or attitudes of hate or hatred are part of the essential nature of hate speech. It also argues that hate speech is best conceived as a family resemblances concept. One important implication is that when looking at the full range of ways of combating hate speech, including but not limited to the use of criminal law, there is every reason to embrace an understanding of hate speech as a heterogeneous collection of expressive phenomena. Another is that it would be unsound to reject hate speech laws on the premise that they are effectively in the business of criminalising emotions, feelings, or attitudes of hate or hatred.     

The Organisation of Hate

In this paper, it is argued that we need to understand the role of ‘hate’ in the organisation of bodies and spaces before we ask the question of the limits of ‘hate crime’ as a legal category. Rather than assuming hate is a psychological disposition - that it comes from within a psyche and then moves out to others - the paper suggests that hate works to align individual and collective bodies through the very intensity of its attachments. Such alignments are unstable precisely given the fact that hate does not reside in a subject, object or body; the instability of hate is what makes it so powerful in generating the effects that it does. Furthermore, although hate does not reside positively in a subject, body or sign, this does not mean that hate does have effects that are structural and mediated. This paper shows that hate becomes attached or ‘stuck’ to particular bodies, often through violence, force and harm. The paper dramatizes its arguments by a reflection on racism as hate crime, looking at the circulation of figures of hate in discourses of nationhood, from both extreme right wing and mainstream political parties. It also considers the part of what hate is doing can precisely be understood in terms of the affect it has on the bodies of those designated as the hated, an affective life that is crucial to the injustice of hate crime. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Dignity, Harm, and Hate Speech

This paper examines two recent contributions to the hate speech literature – by Steven Heyman and Jeremy Waldron – which seek a justification for the legal restriction of hate speech in an account of the way that hate speech infringes against people’s dignity. These analyses look beyond the first-order hurts and disadvantages suffered by the immediate targets of hate speech, and consider the prospect of hate speech sustaining complex social structures whose wide-scale operations lower the social status of members of targeted groups. In Heyman’s and Waldron’s accounts we find plausible insights into the nature of identity-based social hierarchies, and the harms that redound to subordinated people under the operations of such hierarchies. I argue, however, that both analyses are unsuccessful as justifications for the restriction of hate speech, because they do not ultimately provide reason to think that hate speech is responsible for creating or sustaining identity-based social hierarchies.     

‘Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children?’ Hate Speech,Harm, and Childhood

Some authors claim that hate speech plays a key role in perpetuating unjust social hierarchy. One prima facie plausible hypothesis about how this occurs is that hate speech has a pernicious influence on the attitudes of children. Here I argue that this hypothesis has an important part to play in the formulation of an especially robust case for general legal prohibitions on hate speech. If our account of the mechanism via which hate speech effects its harms is built around claims about hate speech’s influence on children, then we will be better placed to acquire evidence that demonstrates the processes posited in our account, and better placed to ascribe responsibility for these harms to individuals who engage in hate speech. I briefly suggest some policy implications that come with developing an account of the harm of hate speech along these lines.

     

Motive,Action, and Confusions in the Debate over Hate Crime Legislation

In this article I argue that the objections against hate crimes defined as separate offenses and in terms of group animus are misguided and are based upon a mistaken view of human action that does not see motives as constituent parts of complex actions. If we are going to have hate crimes legislation, there are no good formal reasons keeping us from having distinct offenses for hate crimes or from having ones defined in terms of group animus. My goal is to clear up a number of action-theoretical confusions that have led some theorists and jurists to raise objections that draw attention away from the real crux of the debate over hate crime legislation. Initially, I defend several considerations that weigh against an understanding of hate crimes legislation as being concerned exclusively or even primarily with character, belief, or motive. These considerations in turn help undercut the related concern that hate crime legislation violates free speech protections.     

Effects of victims' characteristics on attitudes toward hate crimes

Hate crimes are motivated by perpetrators' prejudice toward targets' group. To examine individuals' attitudes toward hate crime perpetrators and targets, participants responded to vignettes of court cases in which the victim's group membership was varied. Results showed that participants recommended more severe sentences for perpetrators when the targets of their crimes were not White males or White females and reported those crimes as more closely fitting the definition of "hate crime." These results show that participants consider penalty enhancements appropriate for hate crimes and that they do not consider crimes against women to be hate crimes, consistent with present hate crime legislation. These results have implications for the utility and support of hate crime legislation but may showcase the resistance to expanding the legislation to protect individuals of other groups, especially women.     

Student perceptions of hate crimes

Estimates indicate hate crimes are a growing concern in the United States. This paper addresses how criminal justice students perceive victims of hate crimes. Survey findings show subjects are less likely to define certain groups of people as victims of hate crimes. Suggestions are made as to how criminal justice departments can heighten awareness of hate crime victims, multiculturalism, and gender diversity among criminal justice students.     

State-Level Determinants of Hate Crime Reporting: Examining the Impact of Structural and Social Movement Influences

In this article, we investigate factors affecting hate crime policies by examining anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) hate crime reports as a type of policy implementation. Analyzing state-level data drawn primarily from the US Census between 1995 and 2008, we examine how structural and social movement mobilization factors explain hate crime reporting. We find that anti-LGBT hate crimes are more likely to be reported in more urbanized states and in states with both split political elites and a greater number of LGBT social movement organizations. We discuss the implications of our findings for separating the drivers of policy passage from policy implementation and for complementary criminological and social movement explanations for hate crime reporting.     

The Impact of the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 on Anti-Islamic Hate Crime

Abstract

Using existing data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, time series analyses were conducted on hate crime data from 2001 around the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A statistically significant increase in anti-Islamic hate crime occurred after 9/11, and anti-Islamic hate crime leveled off within 8 weeks of the occurrence. News stories reporting anti-Islamic hate crimes, stories reporting fear of such bias crime, and public calls for calm, tolerance, and/or reaction to anti-Islamic bias crime followed a similar pattern found within the official data. A city-by-city analysis found that UCR reported anti-Islamic hate crime was essentially non-existent in New York City and Washington, DC. It is suggested that public calls for calm and tolerance and in-group/out-group dynamics may have impacted anti-Islamic hate crime frequency, thus accounting for rises and reductions in this form of bias crime over time.     

Hate crimes in Pennsylvania, 1984–99: Case characteristics and police responses

To gain a better understanding of factors related to the occurrence and processing of hate crimes, we examined 2,031 hate-crime incidents reported to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission from 1984 to 1998. The results of multilevel random coefficient analyses indicated that the frequency and severity of hate incidents, as well as police involvement in response to hate crimes, were significantly related to individual-and community-level influences. Furthermore, some characteristics of victims, offenders, and offenses were significant predictors of local police involvement, the composition of a county's population moderated the processing of hate crimes. Implications for reporting, policy, and future research on hate crimes are discussed.     

It Is Not Paranoia if People Really Are Out to Get You

Abstract

The incidence of hate crime victimization in the states has received scant attention by researchers. Nor is it always clear who feels most vulnerable to hate crime victimization and why. In this research we included hate crime victimization questions in two years (2000, 2001) of a statewide survey. Idaho is a state with a predominately White population. It has been bedeviled with an Aryan Nation's compound and its attendant racist propaganda. We found that many citizens had been the victim of hate crimes in the last year and over the course of their lifetime. Minority group members were disproportionately represented as victims of hate crime and were almost three times as likely to feel vulnerable to it, as White respondents.     

The Intensification of Hating: A Theory

Hate, a simple word, is easily understood by young children. But as a concept, hate is vast, complex, and slippery. The study of hate is not limited to one discipline; it is studied throughout the humanities and social sciences. This paper, which presents a psychological theory of hating, argues that hate is an understudied psychological construct and has particular relevance to justice research. Hate can trigger injustice, and injustice has the capacity to trigger derogation, violence, and hate. Relying on four literatures—justice, psychology, psychoanalysis, and criminal justice—we present a theory of hating that describes the formation, perpetuation, and expression of this influential emotional state. The Intensification Theory of Hating describes hate as a dynamic process that moves from antecedents to emotions, cognitions, morals, and behaviors. Hate, we argue, is not only an emotion; it becomes systemic when interactions among its components unfold over time to intensify hate. We conclude by proposing research approaches and questions that could address hate in psychological and justice research. Submitted to David De Cremer and Kees van den Bos, “Justice and feelings: An emotional revolution”. Social Justice Research, December 11, 2006     

University students’ support to penalty enhancement for hate crime

Laws enabling penalty enhancement for crimes motivated by hostility or prejudice, i.e. hate crimes, have become common in many countries. However, laws as a measure against hate crimes have been contested, because their deterrent effect has gained none or little support in the (limited) literature, and they may be considered symbolic rather than deterrent. This study investigates attitudes towards penalty enhancement for hate crimes. Previous empirical investigations of this question are scarce. The material consists of a survey targeting nearly 3000 Swedish university students. Support for penalty enhancement for hate crime was moderate, shown by one third of the total sample. Results supported the premise that students belonging to a minority group, assumed to be at risk of hate crime victimization, agree to a higher extent of penalty enhancement than students belonging to the majority. Previous victimization experiences and worrying about being victimized were not significantly related to punitive attitudes. However, respondents who perceived the risk of victimization to be increased for minority groups in general were more likely to support penalty enhancement for hate crime. Findings should be confirmed in a nationally representative sample since the public’s perspective on the criminal justice system is important for understanding and dealing with the social problem of hate crime.     

Hate,Threats, and Violence. A Register Study of Persons Suspected of Hate Crime

This article focuses on individuals suspected of hate crimes with xenophobic, Islamophobic, and homophobic motives. The objective is to fill a gap in the knowledge left by existing research, which has primarily focused on victims and definitional problems. This article's genuine contribution to new research is the comparative perspective and the study of co-offending and specialization in offences for persons suspected for hate crimes. To find persons suspected for hate crimes, register data relating to hate-crime-motivated assault and unlawful threats/molestation offences from 2006 have been used. The study is based on a total of 1,910 offence reports together with information from the Registers of Suspected and Convicted Offenders for 558 persons suspected for hate crimes. Xenophobic hate crimes are over-represented in the material by comparison with homophobic and Islamophobic hate crimes. In the reports that have information about the relation between victim and perpetrators, it is more common for the perpetrators to be known than unknown to the victims. In cases where a suspected person has been identified, males are in a clear majority. Those suspected of homophobic hate crimes have the lowest mean age. Only a small number of offence reports include information on suspected co-offenders. Fifty-five per cent of the suspected people have prior registered convictions. It is very uncommon for them to be specialized in violent offences or unlawful threats/molestation, however. It is not possible to generalize the results to perpetrators of hate crimes, because 70% of the offence reports did not have information of suspected persons.     

HIGH TIMES FOR HATE CRIMES: EXPLAINING THE TEMPORAL CLUSTERING OF HATE‐MOTIVATED OFFENDING

This research explains the temporal clustering of hate crimes. It is hypothesized that many hate crimes are retaliatory in nature and tend to increase, sometimes dramatically, in the aftermath of an antecedent event that results in one group harboring a grievance against another. Three types of events are used to test and refine the argument: 1) contentious criminal trials involving interracial crimes, 2) lethal terrorist attacks, and 3) appellate court decisions concerning same‐sex marriage. The results from time‐series analyses indicate that contentious trial verdicts and lethal domestic terrorist attacks precede spikes in racially or religiously motivated hate crimes, whereas less evidence is found for antigay hate crimes after appellate court rulings that grant rights to same‐sex partners. The model put forth in this article complements prior work by explaining in part the timing of hate crime clusters.     

Assessing the public's demand for hate crime penalties

In this article, we analyze responses from a nationally representative sample of American adults to determine public attitudes toward punishment for hate crimes. While attitudinal polls find strong support for hate crime laws, criminological research provides reasons to believe that this support may be weaker than assumed. Our findings suggest that, while there is minimal public support for harsher penalties for offenders who commit hate crimes, attitudes toward punishment, treatment, and minority rights are predictive of preferences for differential treatment of hate crime offenders. We discuss possible implications of these results in our conclusion.